Obama, The New Yorker, And Shared Enemies

(MarketWatch)  The New Yorker's widely publicized cover, which depicts Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a stereotypical Muslim and Michelle Obama as a militant, is getting an overwhelmingly negative reaction.

This is predictable -- and rather ridiculous.

The naysayers have stayed in the spotlight this week, partly because the rest of the media failed to stick up for one of their own, for a change. The New Yorker is now stranded on an island.

Pointed sarcasm

But the critics should know better. Surely, even the most politically dogmatic people MUST be intelligent enough to understand that the New Yorker is making a point through sarcasm. The weekly is mocking the irrational prejudices that plenty of Americans harbor about the Obamas.

The magazine is sticking its finger in the eye of every bigot who hates the Obamas because they're African-Americans, every racist who seeks to polarize the electorate and every ignoramus who mistrusts the senator from Illinois without examining his record and background.

Something else is going on here as well. This criticism centers on conservatives' strong dislike -- "hatred" is such a nasty word, no? -- of both Obama and the New Yorker, two of the most visible and successful symbols of liberal America. While there was also carping in some liberal quarters, the most vocal anger seemed to come from the other side.

The liberals' opponents are jumping on the bandwagon partly in the hope of making the New Yorker look bad (i.e. unpatriotic). The magazine has written many stories blasting the Bush administration's policies, especially its handling of Iraq.

It's a fair question to introduce the New York Times' much-criticized (by me, among others) story earlier this year on Republican presidential aspirant Sen. John McCain. The difference is that the Times was accused of publishing unsubstantiated rumors in a piece about McCain, whose candidacy it probably won't endorse later this year. The New Yorker, regarded as a highly liberal magazine, would be inclined to root for Obama (if privately) to win the election.

Media apathy

At such a tense time, I expected a pro-New Yorker rallying cry from the media. Don't forget that we in the media love to lavish attention on ourselves. We practically live for it.

Remember, when "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert died, the Washington and television media covered the story as exhaustively as they would the passing of a head of state or a pope. The New York City media reacted in much the same way to the death of magazine legend Clay Felker.

Perhaps there is an anti-New Yorker backlash, too.

Inveterate Media Web readers know about much of the publishing industry's resentment of the New Yorker. This has taken many subtle forms in the past few years, ranging from the magazine receiving fewer National Magazine Award nominations and wins than in past years to the embrace of crosstown rival New York magazine. .

Among the people who inherently dislike the New Yorker and Obama, which group has stronger feelings?

I'd call it a tie.

MEDIA WATCH QUESTION OF THE DAY: How did the New Yorker cover make you feel? a) delighted b) amused c) angry d) furious.

Media Web appears on Wednesdays and Fridays at MarketWatch.com.
By Jon Friedman

[ausus-2009]

mtracy9,

So it''s the CIA you find hiding under your bed. I am sure the CIA has better things to do than penetrate every media outlet in the US. It would certainly spread their resources very thin. Your argument is McCarthyism of the left.

As well, the internet ensures there are so many media channels that no one organization or group conld control them all.

Interestingly, the media control tactic was successfully employed in the UK to get the Labor Government elected. They had key operators strategically placed in major newspapers, and of course the BBC has always been a Labor Party mouthpiece.

[mercyme884]

What surprised me was the fact that the super Liberal NewYorker even listened to me when I asked them to expose Obama for the lying, conniving, terrorist he and his wife most certainly are wow!and not surprising is that all you Liberal jerks didn''t even believe the truth of the story.

[mtracy9]

Carl Bernstein''s famous article, "The CIA and the Media" gives a glimpse as to how right-wingers in the CIA control content in our so-called "liberal" media. Here is part of the article:

"There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don%u2019t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level."
--William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

[gunfighter51]

Why is this a surprise to anyone, what we have here is a bunch of liberals that act and think like liberals. You don''t have to be a neo-con to feel the hate of the left
All of the *** depicted on the cover was brought on by HRC and her accomplices on the left, to add Rush Limbaugh painting that picture is just idiotic, you should just put Hill and Bill on the cover with them.

[aakalan]

You missed the point - as most in the media have.

The problem with the New Yorker cover wasn''t the fact that it was supposed to be satire, but that it was lousy satire.

It was -not- obvious to most that there was supposed to be a humorous comment on ignorance embedded in the art. After all, the New Yorker is not Mad Magazine, who would have done this well, with obvious clues to the satire (like Alfred E. Newman as Barack Obama) and outrageously funny allusions in the content.

Instead, the New Yorker produced just a lousy cover not reinforced by any supporting article (can''t judge a magazine by its cover, I guess) or any editorial explanation or expansion on the image.

The New Yorker got what it wanted: a controversial cover, much attention fron the rest of the media, more sales, more "relevance" (whatever). Unfortunately, there are many Americans who will see this idiot cover as more proof that Obama is a Muslim and his wife an extremist activist.

Humor only works if it''s funny. The New Yorker miscalculated and the artist just did a lousy job. The magazine is getting the beating it deserves for its poor judgment and poor execution.

[andor3]

all good for Sen. Obama. He is a genius at politics. Somehow he is seen as the strong front runner, the underdog, and the tough fighter guarding his turf... all at the same time. amazing... Presidential material for sure!

[ausus-2009]

mtracy9,

It was once said that the right saw reds under every bed; you and some of the other correspondents seem to see some vast right-wing anti-Obama corporate conspiracy under every bed.

As I said before, Americans don''t get irony. If this was printed in a British magazine, the readers would get the joke.

[mtracy9]

The New Yorker is just another example of the U.S corporate media and its owner''s uncomfortableness with the prospect of Obama as President. So the corporate elite comes up with a cartoon that attempts to reinforce a scary stereotype of Obama among the masses. They defend their smear by saying this is just satire, and if others don''t see it as such, it''s because they are unsophisticated. Hopefully, many of the The New Yorker''s subscribers will see this editorial caracature for what it is -- dirty politics -- and cancel their subscriptions.

[standlee5]

How did the New Yorker cover make you feel? a) delighted b) amused c) angry d) furious.


They left out e) confused.

[ausus-2009]

Vincan,

What is your evidence the New Yorker is not liberal. They endorsed Kerry in the last election and they have long had a reputation of carrying liberal writers.

I would put CBS and the San Francisco Chronicle among dozens of others on the left side of center.

If you mean by liberal there are little large scale radical-socialist media in the US you would be right. That ideology is too far from the mainstream to get a substantial following.